Jordan Memorandum

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOWLINDA JORDAN, PLAINTIFF PRO SE CAUSE;AFFIDAVIT OF LINDA JORDAN; MEMORANDUM AND APPENDIX OF LAW1 OF 10 LINDA JORDAN V. SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

x Expedite

No hearing set

XHearing is set

Date: September 7, 2012 9:00 AM

Judge/Calendar: Lisa Sutton

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Linda Jordan) No. 12-2-01763-5

Plaintiff ) MEMORANDUM AND APPENDIX OF LAW

v. ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

Secretary of State Sam Reed ) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant )

______________________________________________________________________________

1. Courts Affirm That Electors Have A Legitimate Interest In The Integrity Of Elections

The Supreme Court has noted that “public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has

independent significance, [aside from the State interest to prevent voter fraud] because

itencourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”1The Supreme Court has

recognized the right to vote as a “judicially cognizable interest.”2

1Crawford, ET AL v. Marion County Et Al, 553U.S. 2008,p.13 2See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 544 (1964))


20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

The Anderson Court concluded that presidential selection procedures “implicate a uniquely

important national interest” because “the President and the Vice-President of the United States

are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”3

From the Anderson case; "Nevertheless, as we have recognized,the rights of voters and the rights

of candidates do not lend themselves to neat separation; laws that affect candidates always have

at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters."4

The Jimmy Carter Commission on the integrity of elections concluded in part that,"The electoral

system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to

confirm the identity of voters."5

Confirming the identity and citizenship status of candidates is of equal importance.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that, "as a practical matter, there must be a substantial

regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than

chaos, is to accompany the democratic process."6

2. The Court Has Found That Eligibility Requirements Are Legal

In Dumas v. Gagner the Court found that States can restrict candidates by requiring they meet

eligibility qualifications.7 The Court also noted that, “Statutory provisions relating to conduct of

an election, such as requirements for notice, have been held to be directory only…But provisions

3CNCL of Alternative v. Hooks No. 98‐5256 (Citing Anderson, 460 U.S. at 794) 4Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 405 U. S. 143 (1972) 5Ex 1 Building Confidence in U.S. Elections Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform September 2005 6Burdick , 504 U.S. at 433 (quoting Storer, 415 U.S. at 730). 7“Statutory provisions regarding qualifications of candidates, such as a residence requirement, directly and substantively affect an election because they place restrictions upon who can be a candidate, and, consequently, are not mere technicalities.”


37

”8(Emphasis added) 38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

which affect the merits are mandatory, and, if not followed would void an

election.

Electors have a vested interest in the eligibility requirements placed on candidates and have an

expectation that the Secretary will enforce eligibility requirements. While the Courts have

generally interpreted eligibility requirements liberally, so as to ensure more candidates can attain

a qualified status versus fewer, they have never extended that liberal view to include the

qualification of ineligible candidates. Recently, in New Jersey, the Democrat National

Committee, arguing that Candidate Obama does not have to prove he is an eligible candidate,

asserted that if Mickey Mouse was nominated as a presidential candidate the Secretary of State

would have no choice but to place the cartoon character on the ballot. Plaintiff disagrees. In

Washington State the Secretary has legal standing to reject candidates who are not eligible on the

plain face of it and to reject candidates who do not qualify.9 10 If it is brought to the attention that

a candidate is using a forged identity document to prove eligibility, which is a crime, the

Secretary has an obligation to keep that candidate off the ballot.

3.“Treating candidates equally is, as a matter of law, an important state interest.”11

Candidate Obama should be held to the same instruction that the Secretary holds Write In

Candidates for President and Vice-President to: they have to swear an eligibility oath and if they

don’t swear the oath their declaration will not be accepted. Putting forth Candidate Obama’s

name for placement on the General Election Ballot, before a Nomination Certificate and list of

8DUMAS v. GAGNER 971 P.2d 17 (1999) Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued December 8, 1998 9Ex22012 King County Candidate Manuel “The officer with whom declarations are filed shall review each declaration for compliance with this law.” 10Ex3SOS Can you reject a Declaration? 11See, e.g., Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 179f3d. 64, 78 (3d Cir.1999)


56

o 57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

electors has been submitted, violates WAC 434-215-165.12 By doing so the Secretary also fails

to equally apply, to all President and Vice-President candidates, the substantial weight applied t

the eligibility oath and instructions on the Write In Declaration form for President and Vice

President. The intent of this oath is to compel candidates to tell the truth about their eligibility,

to deter fraud and to safeguard the integrity of representative government.

4. State Court Is The Appropriate Place To Settle A Presidential Eligibility Claim

Law Professor Daniel P. Tokajiasserts that states have the right to consider and determine if a

Presidentialcandidate is indeed eligible.13

5. Forged Identity Document A Critical Issue

There are plenty of red flags to indicate Obama is being less than truthful about his nativity story

and citizenship status.14However, Plaintiffs’ first focus is on the forged identity document that

Candidate Obama is using in an attempt to prove his eligibility to be a candidate. Plaintiff would

12 Ex4 In 2008 the DNC submitted their Nomination for Obama to the SOS on August 28 the last day of their convention. Kitsap County 2008 Election Calendar shows that the Secretary certified the primary for the General Election ballot between Sept. 3‐9. Six to eight days after receiving the Nomination. http://www.kitsapgov.com/aud/elections/archive/08/electioncalendar.pdf 13Ex5 Law Professor Daniel P. Tokaji writes, “State‐court litigation might proceed as a lawsuit seeking to keep a presidential candidate off the primary or general election ballot, on the ground that he or she does not satisfy the requisite qualifications. There exists some recent precedent for this type of case. In 2004….registered voters in Pennsylvania filed suit in state court, seeking to have the names of independent candidate Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo excluded from the ballot ,... Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that its statute did not in fact justify the exclusion of Nader and Camejo from the ballot, there was no doubt as to the state court's ability to entertain a challenge to a presidential candidate's qualifications in the course of determining whether to deny that candidate access to the state ballot.” Tokaji also wrote that, there is no requirement that a Plaintiff in a state‐court lawsuit meet the Article III or prudential requirements for standing and that the federal political question doctrine does not bar state‐court litigation seeking to exclude a presidential candidate from the ballot on the ground that he or she is ineligible. 14Ex6In a 1991 bio, written by Obama and/or his literary agent Dystel & Goderich, Obama is said to have been born in Kenya. Dystel recently said that Obama wrote that bio or approved of it. Obama’s bio was updated on Dystel’s website after his ‘Dreams’ book was published (1995) and Obama’s birthplace was left as Kenya. In 2007 the following bio of Obama was still on their website, “Barack Obama is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African‐American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”


68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

directly addressthe Constitutional eligibility issue if the Secretary or Candidate Obama

introduced an authenticated birth certificate but at this stage the forged document is the matter at

hand. A forged birth certificate can not be used to prove anything except that someone has

engaged in the act of forgery and, in this case, that Candidate Obama is using a forged birth

certificate to gain access to the ballot.Plaintiff has stated the particulars of the forgery in detail

and can speak in generalities as to Obama’s knowledge about that forgery.15It is inconceivable

that Candidate Obama did not know things were not what they seemed concerning his original

long form Certificate of Live Birth. Between 2008 and 2012 Candidate Obama has had his

eligibility lawyers arguing in court challenges all over the country that he did not have to show

anyone a copy of his original, long form Certificate of Live Birth. In December 2010, just four

months before he decided to set his original birth certificate free, Obama watched a

distinguished military surgeon, husband and father (Terry Lakin) be court marshaled and sent to

prison rather than release it.16Over three years, millions of dollars? and one destroyed military

career later Candidate Obama all of a sudden, and with great fanfare, decides to post his original

birth certificate on the White House Website simply because he was tired of all “this silliness”.

Hogwash. Obama had a habit of refusing to release his original birth certificate. A pattern of

going to court over and over and over again to fight anyone who asked him to produce it.

According to one of his lawyers Obama was in court 68 times refusing to produce the

document.17His decision to release it on April 27, 2011 was completely out of his routine. 18In a

15 RULE 9: PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS (b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. 16Ex7 Article on Terry Lakin 17Ex8Jablonski, Georgia case, January 2012 18 ER 406 Habit, Routine, Practice


87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

calculated move Candidate Obama, who could no longer deny that questions about his eligibility

were a problem in his re-election campaign, had to reveal something to shut people up. It is

unlikely that Candidate Obama actually uploaded the forged document on to the White House

Website but there is no doubt in Plaintiff’s mind that Candidate Obama knew the document was

a forgery. Candidate Obama may not escape liability because he looked the other way when the

actual deed was done. In United States v. William No. 99-1157, Judge Flaum writes that, “

Actual knowledge and deliberate avoidance of knowledge where the defendant cut off his normal

curiosity by an effort of will are the same thing. If you find the defendant had a strong suspicion

that things were not what they seemed or that the defendant knew or strongly suspected that he

was involved in criminal activity but deliberately avoids learning so, then you may conclude that

he acted knowingly.”19

A clear attempt was made, as evidenced in the exchange below, to provide Candidate Obama

with the cover of “plausible deniability”. A reporter at the White House Press Conference on

April 27, 2011 wondered if one of the photocopies of the original birth certificate was going to

be available for public view, he asked, “Q Will the President be holding it? MR. PFEIFFER: He

will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.”20Why on earth would anyone be so

adamant about keeping a man’s own birth certificate out of his own hands?Plaintiff

contends that the facts demonstrate there is no “plausible deniability” in the present instance.

Obama can not claim the “Ostrich Defense” by sticking his head in the sand or the “Toddlers

Defense” by sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling “La, la, la, la, la” really loud. For over a

year Candidate Obama has knowingly proffered a forged identity document to the American

19United States v. William No. 99‐1157, Judge Flaum 20April 27, 2011 White House Press Gaggle


108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

voters and to our Secretary of State in an attempt to prove he is a qualified Presidential

Candidate for the 2012 general election and in an attempt to defraud the United States of

America.

6. Plaintiffs’Motion to Show Cause and Affidavit Alleged With SufficientCertainty

Under the Washington State Supreme Court Rules of Procedure, “pleadings are primarily

intended to give notice to the court and to the opponent of the general nature of the claim

asserted….” 21RCW 29A.68.030 provides that "no statement of contest may be dismissed for

want of form if the particular causes of contest are alleged with sufficient certainty."22

In re Election Contest Filed by Coday ( 497 156 Wn.2d 485, March 2006) the Washington State

Supreme Court stated that, “ "Sufficient certainty" is not defined in the statute, nor have we had

occasion to define that particular term. However, in previous election contest cases, this court

has utilized generally applicable, liberal pleading rules.23In Dumas, ….we observed that

[a]though Respondent's petition did not cite specific subsections of the [election contest] statute,

sufficient facts and law were stated concerning the nature of the claim to bring the petition under

the statute. Although the petition is not a model of pleading, it is nevertheless adequate so long

as it is sufficient to satisfy necessary legal requirements.” And “Although we did not indicate

what the "necessary legal requirements" are in an election contest petition or affidavit, we

referred to the standard articulated in Lightner v. Balow, 59 Wn.2d 856, 370 P.2d 982 (1962). In

Lightner, this court recognized that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a

21Dumas v. Gagner Feb. 1999 137 Wd. 2d 268) (Lightner v. Balow, 59 Wn. 2d. 856, 858, P. 2d. 982 (1962). 22RCW 29A.68.030 23See Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wn.2d 268, 282, 971 P.2d 17 (1999).


127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

claim which would entitle him to relief." 24

7. Birth Certificate Critical To Proving Eligibility As Presidential Candidate

Plaintiff asserts that verifying the authenticity of a Presidential Candidate’s birth certificate, in an

attempt to prove age, identity and citizenship status, is more important than verifying the birth

certificate of a Little League baseball player to confirm age.25An authentic birth certificate has

been acknowledged by the governmentas the primary document to prove age anda natural born

citizenship status which are recognized by the Secretary as eligibility requirements. The United

States Citizenship and Immigration Service recognizes the “natural born” citizenship status,

which is required by the Constitution and Washington State in order to qualify as a presidential

candidate, as distinct from a naturalized or native citizen. From, ‘Interpretation 324.2 (8)(b),

‘Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage’. “The effect of naturalization under the above

statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if

naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” 324.2

(3)(a) provides: “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a

native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” and

324.2 (7) states “The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same

extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as

they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-

born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was

24Lightner, 59 Wn.2d at 858 (quoting Sherwood v. Moxee Sch. Dist. No. 90, 58 Wn.2d 351, 353, 363 P.2d 138 (1961) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957).” 25Ex9Hawaii RegistrarOnaka Checks BC’s of Little League Players to verify age.


147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

reacquired.”26 (Emphasis added) (Interpretations are intended to “supplement and clarify the

provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts.” ) Plaintiff has provided

substantial evidence that Candidate Obama’s long form, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth is

forged.“Substantial evidence exists where there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in the record

to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding.”27 Dismissal of a claim

pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate "only if ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to

relief”'28Any eligibility claim made by Candidate Obama or by the Democrat National

Committee on his behalf can not be assumed to be true or relied upon by the Secretary and

indeed must be assumed to be suspect until proven otherwise in a court of law by a forensic

inspection of the original paper Certificate of Live Birth and microfiche. If there is anattemptto

prove eligibility, by producing an authentic original birth certificate for forensic examination, the

Secretary and/or Candidate Obama would still need to overcome the fact that a forged identity

documentwas used to prove his eligibility to be a Presidential Candidate in the 2012 General

Election.

8. Obama Conferred A Level Of Expert Status On Electors Concerning His Purported

Birth Certificate

Plaintiff asserts that by inviting the public to view the purported birth certificate on the White

House Website, with the express intent that we would come to a conclusion about it and his

eligibility, Candidate Obama conferred a level of expert status on the public concerning that

26Ex10U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service defines natural born citizen 27 IN RE: the CONTESTED ELECTION OF Gary L. SCHOESSLER, Appellant. No. 69048‐1. Argued March 20, 2000. ‐‐ April 20, 2000 Washington State Supreme Court En Banc 28Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 254, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (quoting Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wn.2d 959, 961, 577 P.2d 580 (1978)).

Documents

Jordan Memorandum